"Legend is overdue for replacement, and an adequate replacement must attend to the process of science as carefully as Hull has done. I share his vision of a serious account of the social and intellectual dynamics of science that will avoid both the rosy blur of Legend and the facile charms of relativism.... Because of [Hull's] deep concern with the ways in which research is actually done, Science as a Process begins an important project in the study of science. It (...) is one of a distinguished series of books, which Hull himself edits."—Philip Kitcher, Nature "In Science as a Process, [David Hull] argues that the tension between cooperation and competition is exactly what makes science so successful.... Hull takes an unusual approach to his subject. He applies the rules of evolution in nature to the evolution of science, arguing that the same kinds of forces responsible for shaping the rise and demise of species also act on the development of scientific ideas."—Natalie Angier, New York Times Book Review "By far the most professional and thorough case in favour of an evolutionary philosophy of science ever to have been made. It contains excellent short histories of evolutionary biology and of systematics (the science of classifying living things); an important and original account of modern systematic controversy; a counter-attack against the philosophical critics of evolutionary philosophy; social-psychological evidence, collected by Hull himself, to show that science does have the character demanded by his philosophy; and a philosophical analysis of evolution which is general enough to apply to both biological and historical change."—Mark Ridley, Times Literary Supplement "Hull is primarily interested in how social interactions within the scientific community can help or hinder the process by which new theories and techniques get accepted.... The claim that science is a process for selecting out the best new ideas is not a new one, but Hull tells us exactly how scientists go about it, and he is prepared to accept that at least to some extent, the social activities of the scientists promoting a new idea can affect its chances of being accepted."—Peter J. Bowler, Archives of Natural History "I have been doing philosophy of science now for twenty-five years, and whilst I would never have claimed that I knew everything, I felt that I had a really good handle on the nature of science, Again and again, Hull was able to show me just how incomplete my understanding was.... Moreover, [Science as a Process] is one of the most compulsively readable books that I have ever encountered."—Michael Ruse, Biology and Philosophy. (shrink)

Argues for the primacy of the phylogenetic system as the general reference system in biology. This book, first published in 1966, generated significant controversy and opened possibilities for evolutionary biology.

The Development of Modern Taxonomy Taxonomy has a long history, going back to the ancient Greeks and to forerunners even less sophisticated in systematics. Our interest here is centered on modern taxonomy itself, and we shall largely ...

Defining Species: A Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today provides excerpts and commentary on the definition of «species from source material ranging from the ...

This intriguing and ground-breaking book is the first in-depth study of the development of philosophy of science in the United States during the Cold War. It documents the political vitality of logical empiricism and Otto Neurath's Unity of Science Movement when these projects emigrated to the US in the 1930s and follows their de-politicization by a convergence of intellectual, cultural and political forces in the 1950s. Students of logical empiricism and the Vienna Circle treat these as strictly intellectual non-political projects. (...) In fact, the refugee philosophers of science were highly active politically and debated questions about values inside and outside science, as a result of which their philosophy of science was scrutinized politically both from within and without the profession, by such institutions as J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. It will prove absorbing reading to philosophers and historians of science, intellectual historians, and scholars of Cold War studies. (shrink)

Traditionally, species have been treated as classes. In fact they may be considered individuals. The logical term “individual” has been confused with a biological synonym for “organism.” If species are individuals, then: 1) their names are proper, 2) there cannot be instances of them, 3) they do not have defining properties, 4) their constituent organisms are parts, not members. “ Species " may be defined as the most extensive units in the natural economy such that reproductive competition occurs among their (...) parts. Species are to evolutionary theory as firms are to economic theory: this analogy resolves many issues, such as the problems of “reality” and the ontological status of nomenclatorial types. (shrink)

En este trabajo sc presenta un marco general en el que desarrollar una “ontoepistemo-semántica” para las teodas científicas y sus terminos característicos. En primer lugar, se defiende la esencialidad de los aspectos ontologicos y epistemológicos para la semantica y se hacen explícitos los principios generales que constituyen dicho marco. A continuación, se aplican estos principios al análisis ontoepistemosemántico de cada uno de los tres tipos principales de términos científicos: términos relacionales y funcionales con contenido empírico, términos matemáticos puros y términos (...) para los dominios ontológicos básicos.In this paper I offer a general framework for all “ontoepistenlosemantics” of scientific theories and scientific terms. First, I argue for the essential dependence of semantics on ontological and epistemological aspects and I make explicit the general principIes that make up this frame. Then, I apply these principles to the ontoepistemosmantical analysis of the three main kinds of scientific terms: relational and functional term with empirical content, purely mathematical terms and terms for basic ontological domains. (shrink)

This volume is a self-contained introduction to interactive proof in high- order logic, using the proof assistant Isabelle 2002. Compared with existing Isabelle documentation, it provides a direct route into higher-order logic, which most people prefer these days. It bypasses?rst-order logic and minimizes discussion of meta-theory. It is written for potential users rather than for our colleagues in the research world. Another departure from previous documentation is that we describe Markus Wenzel’s proof script notation instead of ML tactic scripts. The (...) l- ter make it easier to introduce new tactics on the?y, but hardly anybody does that. Wenzel’s dedicated syntax is elegant, replacing for example eight simpli?cation tactics with a single method, namely simp, with associated - tions. The book has three parts. – The?rst part, Elementary Techniques, shows how to model functional programs in higher-order logic. Early examples involve lists and the natural numbers. Most proofs are two steps long, consisting of induction on a chosen variable followed by the auto tactic. But even this elementary part covers such advanced topics as nested and mutual recursion. – The second part, Logic and Sets, presents a collection of lower-level tactics that you can use to apply rules selectively. It also describes I- belle/HOL’s treatment of sets, functions, and relations and explains how to de?ne sets inductively. One of the examples concerns the theory of model checking, and another is drawn from a classic textbook on formal languages. (shrink)

The term typology has been used in taxonomy to imply procedures and philosophies of somewhat diverse meanings. Not all typological work meets every criterion suggested for such work by various authors. Some of these criteria are untenable when viewed in the context of modern biological theory, while others seem eminently reasonable in the light of present day knowledge. Mere reference to a work as typological will not convey to the reader or listener a clear idea why a reviewer has decided (...) that it merits the term. Similarly, it would be improper to attach automatic derogatory implications to the adjective “typological”, since it is only those aspects of typological procedure which cannot be defended or maintained today that would merit such a connotation. The classificatory philosophy of many proponents of typology is based on a platonic idealism. To consider a taxonomic type as an abstract idea seems of doubtful utility at best and is certainly beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. The method by which types are obtained must be indicated without ambiguity. In classical typological work this is generally not done, and reconstructions relying on the metamorphosis of parts are often rather vague and controversial. Similarly, abstractions relying either on weighted or unweighted averages of the characters in the taxa to be studied are of questionable value. It would appear that character variation of individuals within taxa or of taxa within higher taxa must in some way be accounted for, if types are to be defined which will represent the natural order in the system. The choice of characters must also be clearly defined and defensible. A priori weighting or preference of some characters over others, based on either presumed phylogenetic importance or logical or functional primacy, is an unjustifiable procedure. Equal weighting and use of all characters leads directly into an empirical approach, which attempts to classify organisms on the basis of all available evidence, without preconceived notions about their arrangement. Such a procedure also arrives at a classification from which types may be abstracted, but does so by clearly defined and previously determined criteria, and does not rely on hypotheses based on certain preliminary conclusions in order to reinforce its argument. The empirical approach, the most notable example of which in recent years has been the development of numerical taxonomy, has definite typological aspects which, however, appear to this writer to be of value and preferable to the phylogenetic method. Smirnov's statistical method of constructing types is contrasted with results obtained by numerical taxonomy. The latter appear preferable from several points of view. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo consiste en analizar las relaciones entre los modelos de optimalidad y la selección natural. Defenderemos que esas relaciones pueden dividirse en dos tipos, en tanto hay dos tipos de explicaciones seleccionistas, que llamaremos “históricas” y “ahistóricas”. Las explicaciones históricas revelan como una población dada adquiere un rasgo que es adaptativo en ese ambiente e involucran muchas generaciones, variación, etc. Las explicaciones ahistóricas, explican por qué, en determinado momento, ciertos tipos de organismos tienen un mayor éxito (...) reproductivo que otros. Mostraremos que los modelos de optimalidad pueden jugar un rol en la determinación del explanandum de las explicaciones histórica seleccionistas, esto es, que ayudan a reconocer qué rasgos son adaptativos. Por otra parte, mostramos que los modelos de optimalidad nos permiten determinar a veces la parte del explanans de las explicaciones ahistóricas (particularmente, el concepto de fitness). The goal of this paper is to analyze the relations between optimality models and natural selection. We contend that these relationships can be divided into two kinds, as there are two kinds of natural selection explanations, which we call “historical” and “ahistorical”. Historical explanations reveal how a given population acquires a trait which is adaptive in its environment, and involves many generations, variations, etc. Ahistorical ones, explain why, at a given moment, certain kinds of organisms have a greater reproductive success than others. We show that optimality models can play a role in determining the explanandum of historical selectionist explanations, that is, they help us to recognize which traits are adaptive. And, on the other hand, that optimality models sometimes allow us to determine part of the explanans of ahistorical explanations (particularly, the concept of fitness). (shrink)

The goal of cladistic systematics is to discern sister-group relations (cladistic relations) by the methods of cladistic analysis and to represent them explicitly and unambiguously in cladograms and cladistic classifications. Cladists have selected cladistic relations to represent for two reasons: cladistic relations can be discerned with reasonable certainty by the methods of cladistic analysis and they can be represented with relative ease in cladograms and classifications. Cladists argue that features of phylogeny other than cladistic relations cannot be discerned with sufficient (...) certainty to warrant attempting to represent them in either cladograms or classifications and could not be represented if they could. I argue that a better alternative is to work toward improving methods of cladistic analysis (or else to supplement them with other methods) so that such features of phylogeny can be discerned and to devise methods of representation capable of representing them in both cladograms and classifications. However, cladograms and classifications cannot represent everything about phylogeny. It is better to represent one or two aspects of phylogeny explicitly and unambiguously than nothing at all. (shrink)

Resumen -/- El objetivo de este trabajo consiste en analizar las relaciones entre los modelos de optimalidad y la selección natural. Defenderemos que esas relaciones pueden dividirse en dos tipos, en tanto hay dos tipos de explicaciones seleccionistas, que llamaremos “históricas” y “ahistóricas”. Las explicaciones históricas revelan como una población dada adquiere un rasgo que es adaptativo en ese ambiente e involucran muchas generaciones, variación, etc. Las explicaciones ahistóricas, explican por qué, en determinado momento, ciertos tipos de organismos tienen un (...) mayor éxito reproductivo que otros. Mostraremos que los modelos de optimalidad pueden jugar un rol en la determinación del explanandum de las explicaciones histórica seleccionistas, esto es, que ayudan a reconocer qué rasgos son adaptativos. Por otra parte, mostramos que los modelos de optimalidad nos permiten determinar a veces la parte del explanans de las explicaciones ahistóricas (particularmente, el concepto de fitness). -/- Abstract -/- The goal of this paper is to analyze the relations between optimality models and natural selection. We contend that these relationships can be divided into two kinds, as there are two kinds of natural selection explanations, which we call “historical” and “ahistorical”. Historical explanations reveal how a given population acquires a trait which is adaptive in its environment, and involves many generations, variations, etc. Ahistorical ones, explain why, at a given moment, certain kinds of organisms have a greater reproductive success than others. We show that optimality models can play a role in determining the explanandum of historical selectionist explanations, that is, they help us to recognize which traits are adaptive. And, on the other hand, that optimality models sometimes allow us to determine part of the explanans of ahistorical explanations (particularly, the concept of fitness). (shrink)

Resumen: Usualmente se ha asumido que una única distinción puede dar cuenta del rol que cumplen los conceptos en una teoría respecto de la contrastación y respecto de la explicación. Intentaremos mostrar que esta asunción es incorrecta. Por una parte, no hay razones para considerar que esta coincidencia deba darse, y por otra, como se intentará mostrar a partir de varios ejemplos, de hecho, no se da. La base de contrastación de una teoría no tiene por qué coincidir con el (...) explanandum de la teoría. Para defender este punto se asumirá el estructuralismo metateórico. Se extraerán consecuencias para la concepción metateórica presupuesta. Palabras claves: Explicación; contrastación; T-teoricidad; Estructuralismo metateórico; Distinción teórico observacional -/- Title: Explain and test Abstract: It is usually held that one distinction can account for the role that concepts play in a theory regarding both test and explanation. We will demonstrate that this assumption is incorrect. On the one hand, there is no reason to think that this coincidence should exist. On the other, this is not the case, as we will show analysing several examples. The testing basis of a theory does not have to coincide with the explanandum of the theory. To defend this point we will endorse de metatheoretical structuralism. In addition, we will consider some repercussions that this discussion has for the assumed metatheoretical framework. Key-words: Explanation; Test; T-theoreticity; Metatheoretical Structuralism; Theoretical observational distinction . (shrink)

Although we may find the concept of anomie in Greek thought, it is since Durkheim that the concept begins to be used specifically as a sociological concept. However, a theory of anomie only becomes consolidated since “Social Structure and Anomie” by Robert K. Merton (Merton 1938). The theory becomes important and conquers its space in the rest of the century as one of the most productive theories about deviance. In this study, based on a contemporary conception of scientific theory, that (...) of the structuralist metatheory, a reconstruction of Merton’s approach is proposed, allowing to make explicit the deep structure of the theory. (shrink)

This paper explores the use of Popper's philosophy of science by cladists in their battle against evolutionary and numerical taxonomy. Three schools of biological systematics fiercely debated each other from the late 1960s: evolutionary taxonomy, phenetics or numerical taxonomy, and phylogenetic systematics or cladistics. The outcome of that debate was the victory of phylogenetic systematics/cladistics over the competing schools of thought. To bring about this "cladistic turn" in systematics, the cladists drew heavily on the philosopher K.R. Popper in order to (...) dress up phylogenetic systematics as a hypothetico-deductivist, indeed falsificationist, research program that would put an end to authoritarianism. As the case of the "cladistic revolution" demonstrates, scientists who turn to philosophy in defense of a research program read philosophers with an agenda in mind. That agenda is likely to distort the philosophical picture, as happened to Popper's philosophy of science at the hands of cladists. (shrink)

We defend that there is a link between the mathematical analytical models and the mathematical synthetic models that is peculiar to Chomsky’s grammar exposed in The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, CHG. To identify this link helps to identify the objects and the task of the grammars in CHG and also to detect some inadequacies in the exposition and conception underlying in CHG . In order to clarify these inadequacies, we defend that a grammar can be conceived as a theory (...) that assigns the values of its notions to the sentences of a language, and we propose the following basic relational notions for CHG: phrase structure, transformed structure, phonemic representation and phonetic representation. By means of the structural metatheory, we define the potential models and the actual models of CHG. (shrink)

We reconstruct “the classical transformational theory” of Chomsky, and fit it into the structuralist theory of science. We describe both the formal and the empirical features of this classical account, so that one basic hypothesis of this theory – where central notions are used – can be formulated, and in which Chomsky’s “classical” distinction between surface structure and deep structure is clarified. In the empirical claim of this theory are words, sentences and high-structured entities in an inseparable way intertwined. We (...) claim that the formal structure of a natural language is not approximately the same as that of an empirical theory in general. We clarify two special points which affect the structure of the notion of an empirical theory, namely: the delineation of intended applications and the fit between data and models. We hold that the concept of the empirical claim for a linguistic theory should be generalized in comparison with the “standard” structuralist approach. (shrink)

En este artículo se arguye que pueden distinguirse cuatro tipos fundamentales de estructuras diacrónicas en la ciencia y que estos cuatro tipos pueden representarse formalmente mediante una versión refinada del aparato del estructuralismo metateórico. Los cuatro tipos pueden describirse como: cristalización, evolución teórica, incrustación y suplantación con inconmensurabilidad . Ellos se elucidan primeramente en términos intuitivos, informales, y se sugieren algunos ejemplos históricos . En la segunda parte del ensayo, los cuatro tipos se caracterizan formalmente en términos estructuralistas; en ello (...) tienen un papel central las nociones de subestructura parcial escalonada y de red teórica diacrónica. Se exponen los ejemplos del desarrollo de la termodinámica fenomenológica de Clausius como caso de cristalización, y de la mecánica newtoniana y de la termodinámica gibbsiana como casos de evolución teórica. (shrink)

Existe una tensión entre pretender aplicar una teoría científica genuina del diseño inteligente en general al caso de los organismos vivos y defender, al mismo tiempo, una posición minimalista al respecto del diseño inteligente en la que no se afirma nada al respecto de los objetivos ni la naturaleza del diseñador. Para que el argumento del diseño tenga la fuerza pretendida, debería establecer la identidad del diseñador y sus objetivos. Por otra parte una teoría del diseño inteligente que acuda a (...) un diseñador con un plan general de creación, como la presupuesta por los teólogos naturales del siglo XIX, es incompatible con grandes porciones de la biología funcional contemporánea. (shrink)